CDC CONTINUES TO BROWBEAT CITIZENSTO GET THEIR ANNUAL FLU SHOTS

FLU VACCINES IN PREGNANT WOMEN

David Wagner - Deutschland - Pixabay

"Influenza vaccination now supersedes many other priorities of public health (such as obesity, illiteracy, and high school dropout), and we question whether so much time, effort, and money should be dedicated to flu vaccination while these other national healthcare priorities remain on the back burner."Published one year ago this week in Medscape Pediatrics (Flu Vaccine for All: A Critical Look at the Evidence) by Drs. Eric Biondi (pediatric hospitalist) and Andrew Aligne (pediatrician, professor of pediatrics and public health expert --- MPH). "My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed." From the press release from Thompson's attorney's website (Morgan / Verkamp). This, folks, is the very nature of INVISIBLE & ABANDONED RESEARCH, and because there was huge amounts of such in the Cochrane Reviews, it should not be trusted as much as it has been. A decade after publishing, Thompson admitted the fraud but sought whislteblower status after conversations he was having with a colleague were secretly recorded.

There was a time in America when OB/GYN's actually discussed nutrition with their pregnant patients (UNLIKE TODAY). And among the many other tidbits of medical advice given by doctors to these women was to avoid anything and everything that might (might) cross the placental barrier and harm their developing babies. Thus, pregnant women were warned to stay far away from alcohol, cleaning products, chemicals, cigarettes, tuna and other fish (mercury), and drugs --- especially DRUGS....even the OTC STUFF that many have been led to believe was "safe". It's probably a good thing that this habit has proven difficult to break.

Case in point, a German study published in BMC Public Health exactly one year ago this month (Skewed Risk Perceptions in Pregnant Women: The Case of Influenza Vaccination) that revealed, "overall, [only] 10.9% of women were vaccinated against seasonal influenza during pregnancy...." Why so few? Because, "the risk of vaccination was perceived higher than the risk of the disease." Although we need to be seriously asking ourselves why this is -- especially in a European socialist country where that flu shot won't cost you a nickel --- we need to realize that this mode of thinking is not uniquely European.

Just last month, the Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology Canada published a study called Attitudes and Beliefs of Pregnant Women and New Mothers Regarding Influenza Vaccination in British Columbia. Home to Vancouver, I would have to believe that BC women (not to mention Canadian women in general) are a fairly intelligent lot. So why is it that this study showed that, "influenza vaccination rates among pregnant women in Canada are consistently very low"? Again, this is in a country where there is NOPE (No Out of Pocket Expense) for doctor visits or vaccinations. Although American vaccination rates are somewhat higher, we have a similar situation here in America --- a situation that the government is trying desperately to remedy at any cost (see quote at the top of the page).

The Centers for Disease Control wants to see at least a 70% vaccination rate among all American citizens. As of the end of November we are hovering about thirty points below that. It begs the question; if the FLU SHOT is so grand, then why are the vaccination rates so low? And even more importantly, if the majority of pregnant women really do perceive the flu vaccine to be more harmful than the disease itself, why in the world would they even think of getting a flu shot in the first place? There's only one real reason, and that would be fear.

Our government and Big Pharma (OFTEN ONE AND THE SAME) have colluded to prey on pregnant women, telling them that BECAUSE IT'S THE WORST FLU SEASON EVER --- AGAIN, she and / or her baby could could get sick and die with the flu --- or at the very least, require hospitalization (HERE). Because life can sometimes be rough, anything is possible. But I'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOU that according to hundreds of medical studies, flu vaccines are a farce for the general adult population as well as for both children (HERE) and the elderly (HERE). Isn't it time we take a hard look at the dangers of vaccinating pregnant women with a vaccine that is at best, worthless as far as preventing the flu is concerned, and at worst, dangerous for both mom and baby?

The CDC propagates not only the fear of the flu virus, but the "fact" that only they have the answers, when they state, "Pregnant women are at high risk of serious influenza (flu) illness including some that might result in hospitalization (like pneumonia). Pregnant women who get flu might be more likely to have certain pregnancy complications. Additionally, babies younger than 6 months also are at high risk of serious flu illness but are too young to be vaccinated. The best way for pregnant women to protect themselves from the flu is to get a flu shot. A flu shot has been shown to protect pregnant women from flu illness. Additionally a flu shot given during pregnancy has been shown to lower risk of flu illness and flu-related hospitalizations in their infants for the first several months of life." Truthfully, I'm not sure that there is one sentence in this paragraph that is true, so today we are going to pick at it a bit.

When it gets right down to it, I suppose that pregnant women are, at least to some degree, at risk for almost anything and everything, including the flu. At least that's what we have been led to believe anyway. Think for a moment how many products warn us, "not recommended for pregnant women" (flu vaccine inserts all reveal that, "there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women"). But what's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when it comes to pregnant women, the flu, and the vaccines that are supposed to prevent it?

An editorial by Dr. Margaret McCartney in the October 2014 issue of the British Medical Journal (What Use is the Flu Vaccine?) shed some more light on this question by exposing the flu vaccine for the hoax it is. "For each healthy adult, a Cochrane review found that vaccination saved an average of just .04 days off work [19 minutes] and concluded that no evidence supported it as a routine public health measure. So, why are we vaccinating so many people in whom we have no proof that it works? Treating children is one thing; treating adults like children is quite another. Flu vaccination is offered millions of times every year at huge cost; given so much uncertainty, this policy is impossible to justify." It's important to remember that the study McCartney is citing here (Vaccines to Prevent Influenza in Healthy Adults) stated in its second sentence that, "The target populations were healthy adults, including pregnant women and newborns."

In this meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on the subject (the data from over 250 studies was crunched, including looking at nearly ten million people and over 1.3 million mother / child pairs), the authors stated, "The preventive effect of influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: 71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza. Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation. The protection against flu-like symptoms that is given by the administration of influenza vaccine to pregnant women is uncertain or at least very limited; the effect on their newborns is not statistically significant." Why does the flu vaccine show so poorly at doing the very thing was created and designed to do in the first place? Probably because most of the viruses that cause "flu-like symptoms" (often referred to as ILI or "influenza-like illness") are not flu and thus not protected against by the vaccine.

The biggest trial of it's kind in Cochrane's massive meta-analysis was the state of California's Kaiser Permanente study of nearly 50,000 pregnant women that was published in the American Journal of Perinatology (Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine During Pregnancy in Preventing Hospitalizations and Outpatient Visits for Respiratory Illness in Pregnant Women and Their Infants). This study saw a grand total of 9 women hospitalized for flu or flu-like symptoms (which in the absence of a confirmational test, is likely not the flu). That calculates out to be slightly less than one in 5,000 women. And the kicker is, none of them died. All 9 recovered completely. The author's conclusions?

"Hospital admission with a principal diagnosis of influenza or pneumonia was an extremely rare event for the women in the study population. Women who received influenza vaccineduring pregnancy had the same risk for ILI visits compared with unvaccinated women. We also found no difference in the risk of outpatient visits for vaccinated and unvaccinated women. Hospital admissions for influenza or pneumonia for women in the study population were quite rare and no women died of respiratory illness during pregnancy. Infants born to women who received influenza vaccination had the same risks for influenza or pneumonia.

Maternal influenza vaccination was also not a significant determinant of risk of ILI outpatient visits for infants, nor did it significantly affect the risk of otitis media visits. Influenza vaccination during pregnancy did not significantly affect the risk of cesarean section, adjusting for the woman’s age. It also did not affect the risk of preterm delivery. In this study, we were unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of influenza vaccination with data for hospital admissions and physician visits. Hospitalizations for respiratory illness were uncommon in both vaccinees and nonvaccinees."

Despite the fact that women might be slightly more susceptible to catching the flu than the general population (debatable at best), is injecting them with a vaccine that according to CDC contains an array of toxic compounds; FORMALDEHYDE, THIMEROSAL (mercury), ALUMINUM, and several other components, make any sense? As you should be starting to see, it's a misguided attempt to prevent a disease that for the most part, isn't really a disease at all.

Listen to what Dr. Kelly Brogan MD / BS in Neuroscience (Cornell and MIT respectively) writes in her recent article Is the Flu Vaccine the Solution or the Problem? "Does the flu vaccine work? The frank efficacy of the flu vaccine has been called into question by the only meta-analytic authority, the Cochrane database. Most salient to this discussion within the Cochrane review on flu vaccines in healthy adults is this passage: 'Over 200 viruses cause influenza and flu-like symptoms, producing the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between them as both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines may only be effective against influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.' Clearly, validated conclusions from the most credible evidence-based organizations reveal it is nearly impossible to prove that flu vaccines protect against influenza."

Here's what's funny about this whole matter (not funny ha ha, but funny in a sick and twisted sort of way). It's no secret that BIG PHARMA'S appetite for money is insatiable. No matter how much they have, it's never enough. And make no mistake about it, money is the one and only reason they are in existence; not "helping people" as they often claim. Money is why they continue to con (BRIBE) lawmakers into passing legislation that forces pregnant women to get flu shots (that's right folks --- FORCES). If this next section doesn't make you rethink your choice to get a flu shot while pregnant, nothing will.

MERCURY, FLU SHOTS, AND PREGNANT WOMENWHAT'S THE TRUTH?

If you are one of those people who thinks that GUINEA-PIGGING women folk for the sake of satisfying big pharma's bottomless pockets and big government's unbridled quest for power is a good thing, you might change your mind when you learn what's in those flu shots YOU'VE BEEN SCRAMBLING TO GET each year for the past two decades. In the CDC's propaganda piece called Understanding Thimerosal, Mercury, and Vaccine Safety, they reveal that (all quotes in this post are cherry-picked due to restraints on time and space).......

"Thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound that prevents the growth of dangerous bacteria and fungus. It is used as a preservative for flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, to keep the vaccine free from contamination. Thimerosal is also used during the manufacturing process for some vaccines to prevent the growth of microbes." Please note the antibiotic-like properties of mercury, and realize that one of the hallmarks of AUTISM is dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability aka leaky gut syndrome (HERE) --- in other words, a fouled up Gut. "In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was required by law to assess the amount of mercury in all the products the agency oversees, not just vaccines. The U.S. Public Health Service decided that as much mercury as possible should be removed from vaccines, and thimerosal was the only source of mercury in vaccines. Even though there was no evidence that thimerosal in vaccines was dangerous, the decision to remove it was a made as a precautionary measure to decrease overall exposure to mercury among young infants. This decision was possible because childhood vaccines could be reformulated to leave out thimerosal without threatening their safety, effectiveness, and purity. Today, no childhood vaccine used in the U.S.—except some formulations of flu vaccine in multi-dose vials—use thimerosal as a preservative. Mercury is a metal found naturally in the environment. High amounts of methylmercury can harm the nervous system."

Because this statement sounds phony and contrived --- almost like someone has something to hide --- let's delve into the matter and see what's really going on with regards to mercury as it relates to the Flu Vaccine. For starters, we are told repeatedly that vaccines do not contain that evil and dangerous methylmercury, but ethylmercury, which is safe because it's supposeldy relatively inert and easily excreted by the body. Before we tackle this specific issue, let me hit you with a few mercury facts

Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element on the planet --- 500 times more toxic than lead. Read that sentence again and let it really sink in. Because despite what you are being told by the government, it's in your Flu Shots in the form of something called Thimerosal. I would argue that along with ANTIBIOTICS, thanks to Thimerosal, vaccines are doing a pretty good job of messing up our collective health over the long haul (HERE & HERE are the mechanisms). Much of this is because the Thimerosal-Free flu vaccine is anything but. Before I show you how this is possible, let me briefly show you some of the flimsy evidence used to create our current flu vaccination guidelines for pregnant women.

Back in May of 2004, a group of MD's and Ph.D research types got together and created a document called Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Among other things, we learned that, "Rates of infection are highest among children, but the risks for complications, hospitalizations, and deaths from influenza are higher among persons aged over 65 years. Deaths from influenza are uncommon among children with and without high-risk conditions. A study that modeled influenza-related deaths estimated that an average of 92 deaths occurred among children aged under 5 years annually during the 1990's." Bear in mind that not only does this average out to less than ten per year, most of these deaths occur in children living with "high-risk conditions". But what about pregnant women?

The authors started out the pregnancy section by talking about Flu Pandemics from a centruy and sixty years ago respectively. "Influenza-associated excess deaths among pregnant women were documented during the pandemics of 1918--19 and 1957--58." While this statement is certainly true (millions died in the WWI PANDEMIC), comparing pandemic flu vaccines to seasonal flu vaccines tells us nothing whatsoever about either, as they are as different from each other as night and day. The authors do, however, go on to give us their recommendations for inoculating pregnant women against the flu. "Because of the increased risk for influenza-related complications, women who will be pregnant during the influenza season should be vaccinated. Vaccination can occur in any trimester. Researchers estimate that an average of 1--2 hospitalizations can be prevented for every 1,000 pregnant women vaccinated." In other words, one or two hospitalizations prevented per thousand women inoculated. Are you kidding me? How pathetic --- particularly when it comes to exposing women and their unborn children to mercury. But it gets worse.

Because mercury is so toxic (the huge drinking-water crisis in Flint, Michigan was over lead and not mercury), we would assume that when the government tells us that certain vaccines --- especially those manufactured for children --- do not contain mercury, they don't contain mercury. Period; end of story. Not only is this not the case, it is often times far from the case. Much of this has to do with the fact that when Flu Vaccines are manufactured, they are typically manufactured with mercury. The mercury is then chemically removed from the vaccines that are to be designated "'Mercury Free". Unfortunately, this removal process doesn't work so well, leaving significant amounts of mercury behind, clinging to the proteins in the vaccine.

According to the EPA's CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (it's a short easy-to-read chart), the amount of mercury considered to be safe in drinking water is 2 parts per billion (2 ppb). If it's 100 times that (200 ppb), the organization considers it "toxic". There is no argument that the flu vaccines with Thimerosal contain 25,000 - 50,000 ppb of mercury (as of a few years ago, the most common vaccine was on the high end of this figure). However, as shocking as it may sound, the "Mercury Free" flu vaccines typically contain between 300 and 600 ppb of the neurotoxic element.

Interestingly enough, ingesting mercury-tainted fish has been compared by Thimiserol proponents to receiving mercury-containing vaccines. This is a terrible analogy, as vaccines are given in a manner that purposefully bypasses most of the body's normal defenses, being injected directly into the blood. But maybe, just maybe, none of this discussion has gotten to the real root of the issue. I would argue that people (including those in government) are largely failing to ask the biggest and most important question of all. Has the flu vaccine truly made our collective health better? The brilliant and relentless Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center spells it out for us in a well-documented article called Vaccination in Pregnancy: Is It Safe?

"Women having babies are dying of heart failure, high blood pressure and stroke, infection of the blood, diabetes and blood clots in greater numbers because the maternal death rate in America has been climbing since 1987.We now rank a dismal number 50 in maternal mortality in the world, which is worse than that of most European countries and some countries in Asia and the Middle East. Equally shocking is the fact that the U.S. now has the highest first day infant death rate of all industrialized countriesand ranks number among nations in infant mortality. Preterm birth rates have increased 36% since the early 1980’sand 6 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in America die before their first birthday.

Birth defects, chromosomal damage, premature birth, low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome are the leading causes of death for about 23,000 newborn infants every year,with half of those deaths occurring on the first day of life. A baby born in America is twice as likely to die within the first 24 hours as babies born in the European Union. Public health officials also can’t figure out why so many infants and children in America are plagued with brain and immune system problems. The unprecedented, unexplained chronic disease and disability epidemichas gotten worse in the past three decades – with 1 child in 6 now learning disabled;1 in 9 suffering with asthma;1 in 50 developing autism;and millions more suffering with severe food allergies, inflammatory bowel disease and other chronic illness."

And this doesn't even begin to touch on the terrible health of our adult population (HERE). It all begs the question of what to do to protect your health and the health of your unborn baby from the flu. Firstly, don't panic if you happen to get sick. Not only have I shown you that flu morbidity / mortality --- particularly for pregnant women and their babies --- is massively overblown, but that most of you who think you know what flu is, clearly don't (HERE). Secondly, realize that vaccinations can actually put you at risk for developing ILI or flu-like symptoms. Not only have I shown you that having a flu vaccination each year, weakens its effectiveness (HERE), but there are actually studies where vaccinated individuals have been shown have a greater chance of coming down with what we would functionally refer to as "The Flu" (ILI).

One of the many Oxford Journals (Clinical Infectious Diseases) published a study a few years back whose title lets the cat out of the bag (Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine). We know that not only are flu-like illnesses far more common than the flu, but when compared to the flu, they have the potential to be just as severe or worse (even though being vaccinated against the flu does not protect against these other viruses). That's why this study --- a study that showed a 440% increase in ILI (influenza-like illness) after being vaccinated against the flu --- concluded that, "In the prepandemic period of our study, we did not observe a statistically significant reduction in confirmed seasonal influenza virus infections in the vaccinated recipients. We identified a statistically significant increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection among vaccinated recipients, including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie / echovirus infection." This helps explain why I continue to beat the drum of GUT HEALTH for all things having to do with the IMMUNE SYSTEM.

I showed you earlier in the post a mechanism whereby the flu vaccine destroys Gut Health. But what if people in general --- and especially pregnant women --- were to take steps to improve their collective Gut Health, and what would doing so look like? Firstly, people would have to give up THE HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE as this is what feeds bad bacteria, creating a wide array of problems related to dysbiosis (HERE). Secondly, people should not be taking any meds that aren't keeping them alive (HERE). This is nothing more than standard advice given to pregnant women for decades. And lastly, realize that improving your Gut Health improves your immunity against the flu. The proof?

Two years ago this month, the medical journal Letters in Applied Microbiology published a Japanese study on PROBIOTICS calledEffects ofProbiotic Lactobacillus Brevis KB290 on Incidence of Influenza Infection Among School Children that was done during, "the epidemic of influenza in Tochigi prefecture". In this study the authors looked at several thousand students from 15 area schools, dividing them into four groups related to whether or not they were vaccinated against the flu, and whether or not they consumed a probiotic-laced liquid yogurt / keifer drink on a daily basis containing the common commensal gut bacteria, Lactobacillus Brevis KB290. The results are as follows. "There were no adverse events associated with consuming the test drink. consumption of the test drink containing KB290 was not found to enhance the effect of vaccination. The reduction in the incidence of influenza by KB290 consumption was especially remarkable in unvaccinated individuals. This is believed to be the first study to show a probiotic food reducing the incidence of influenza in schoolchildren, although further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of the probiotic strain KB290." But that's not even the biggest part of story.

Of the non-vaccinated group, almost 30% of the non-probiotic group were diagnosed with flu sometime during the year. However, that dropped to just over 16% in the non-vaccinated, probiotic group --- a 50% reduction just from taking probiotics. What's really cool, however, is what was seen in the vaccinated group. Just under 20% of the non-kiefer drinkers were diagnosed with flu, while only 15% of the probiotic group were diagnosed similarly. That means that in the two probiotic groups, there was virtually no difference whether you were vaccinated or not --- the probiotic was equally powerful preventing the flu in both groups.

This is why MY RETURN-TO-HEALTH PROTOCOL (MANADORY DISCLAIMER: not all information may be suitable for pregnant women), revolves around Gut Health and controlling INFLAMMATION. If you are interested in getting your health in order before you get pregnant and preventing the flu naturally, the first link in this paragraph is a great place to start. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm smart enough to realize that dealing with MICROBIOME ISSUES is far better for you (not to mention your unborn baby) than being injected with mercury, aluminum, and other nasties!

Leave a Reply.

Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).